Comments

jamesf

Jude, do not forget that knives do not kill, knife owners do, hammer owners do, ball bat owners do, car owners do, screwdriver owners do, axe owners do. This is crazy. If you are a nut and want to kill someone or something I am sure you will find a way. What did the nuts use before guns were invented? Did Jack the Ripper use a gun? Put darn near ANYTHING in a goofballs hands and they can make it a weapon.

MadVette

Gee Bu, here I thought we had found some common ground. Gssmms is making my point precisely. Where do you stop with liability? Leaving a weapon in plain sight on the dash of a pickup is one thing. Quite different when someone commits a felony and gets my weapon. And by the way I do have them locked up most of the time anyway, but I think suing for millions or giving prison time because a thug kicks your door and steals your weapons is nuts. Better lock up your car and put the keys in a safe so you don't invite a thief to run over and kill someone.

Willbill

As for the so-called “Assault Weapons” being called military weapons, citizen disarmament zealots acknowledged that they are not military weapons. As Josh Sugarmann, the executive director and founder of the Violence Policy Center, put it in Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988, “The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”

Willbill

It should also be noted that even many citizen disarmament zealots have acknowledged that the so called “Assault Weapons Ban” would not reduce crime. In an April 5, 1996, column in the Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer, who forthrightly supports total gun prohibition, wrote, "Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic — purely symbolic — move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." Also, the statistics I cited previously prove that a person is more likely to be murdered with a weapon other than a firearm than with one of those so-called “Assault Weapons” or any other rifle.

Willbill

“The only people who need these kind of weapons is the military or law enforcement.”

When I purchased my AR-15 over thirty years ago no one called it a “Assault Weapon” or “Killing Machine” “Battlefield Weapon,” “Rapid Fire Weapon” Etc. It was the semi-auto (Fires one shot per one pull of the trigger) version of the semi-auto plus full-auto (Fires continuously as long as the trigger is pulled) M-16, but citizen disarmament zealots and organizations found that they could gain support for gun bans through semantics. For example, they called affordable handguns “Saturday Night Specials” or “Junk Guns.” So, that started calling AR-15s and the like “Assault Style Weapons” and later just “Assault Weapons” in an attempt to deceive the public into believing that they were advocating banning machine guns. No military force on earth use AR-15s or any other semi-automatic only rifle. They use the full automatic and semi-automatic M-16s, M-4s, AK-47s, Etc.

Willbill

“The NRA cannot give one good reason why anybody needs an assault rifle or a 100-round clip.” The inconvenient fact is that in 2011, Aks, ARs, Uzis and all other semi-auto “Assault Weapons” as well as all other rifles accounted for 323 murders nationwide even with those so called “High capacity magazines.” That is less than three percent of all homicides and comes to less than one homicide a day. Not only does that mean that no one in you state will be murdered by an “Assault Weapon” or any other rifle this month but likely not next month, or even the month after that.

By contrast, over five times the number of murders, 1,649, were with knives or cutting instruments, over two and a quarter the numbers of murders, 728, were with hands, fists, feet, etc, and more murders, 496, were committed using blunt objects like clubs, hammers, baseball bats, etc.

Willbill

Is anyone so naïve to believe that only money and not votes count. Believe me, representatives listen to their constituents? When the so-called “Assault Weapons Ban” was passed many representatives ignored the hundreds of phone calls and letters in opposition to the ban, and they were voted out of office. One of my teachers once said that one of our Senators, Jim Sasser, would have a seat in the Senate for as long as he wanted it. He ignored my letter and phone call as well as the thousands of others that opposed it as well, and he was voted out of office in a landslide. Both of my Senators voted against new gun control laws, so I will be voting for both of them in the next election.

bububud

MadVette...Gun security is only necessary around children? Gun security is needed at all times and involving all age groups! Guns, when not in the possession of the owner, must be properly secured whether in the home, a business or vehicle even if locked! State law through the courts will determine the degree of liability on the part of the gun owner. A steel gun safe or vault making access nearly impossible is what is called for in providing adequate security when not in possession of the gun owner. The gun owner risks severe penalty for failing to comply! Thousands of lives can be saved, theft and injury prevented if gun owners would take responsibility and LOCK THE GUNS UP!

MadVette

You know BuBud, I actually do agree with you on the keeping guns secured around kids. I think the father in Des Moines was charged in the incident. I could be wrong but I know I read one where the father was charged with something for allowing his child access to the weapon. My whole gripe with your view in these discussions is charging homeowners when their house is illegally burglarized and guns taken and used illicitly. One more thing, most of those doing the shootings are certifiably nuts and if the family knows they have issues they should make sure weapons are not available to them.

gssmms

Terry wrote: "The only people who need these kind of weapons is the military or law enforcement."

While any rational person detests the damage that ANY tragedy brings... whether it be via firearm, motor vehicle, industrial pollution or accident, diseases caused by millions of gallons of products sprayed on fields all around the globe, or any other cause...

the mentality of only the government (or either of their mentioned agencies) would be the only ones to possess the weapons... THAT is exactly what bothers me the most!

I think the people who wrote ALL of the "Bill of Rights" would be disgusted by the idea that the government had that kind of 'advantage' over the people who they were sworn to represent and serve.

"The only people who need these kind of weapons is the military or law enforcement" may be a viable strategy for some place... but it is NOT a foundational principle of the USA.

bububud

It's in the home where gun owners need to provide much better security of the weapons. When not in the owners possession, LOCK THE GUNS UP! A five year old Des Moines student brought an unloaded pistol to school recently...Again in DSM a 12 year old brought some friends to his grandfathers home. Fifteen guns, some loaded, were left unsecured. One of the buds was shot in the shoulder...A five year old Kentucky boy shot and killed his two year old sister using an unsecured and loaded 22 rifle...this is happening everyday in America! Think of the lives saved if gun owners would properly secure their weapons! Besides injury and deaths, unsecured guns invite theft! LOCK THE GUNS UP! What's it going to take, the threat of prison sentences before they use some common sense? Idiots!!!

HawkDodger

HA HA HA HA! Who are we going to get the opportunity to vote out, Terry? The latest infringement on the second amendment failed in the Senate, remember. Harkin is retiring and returning home to the Bahama’s and Grassley won’t be up for election for re-election until 2016.

As for the rest of your nonsensical ranting, if the politicians really cared, they would provide real protection for our children. Visible or perceived resistance would provide more security than the paper shield that a “gun free zone” provides.

MadVette

Here we go again. What exactly is an assault rifle? A true assault rifle is fully automatic capable. They are already illegal for most persons to own. Also quit calling magazines clips. Typical uniformed, feel good, government knows best type. I will keep my AR and 30 round MAGAZINE thank you.